Qaddafi’s hired mercenaries are closing in on the rebel stronghold in Benghazi. If they overrun the city, two things will almost certainly happen: Any hope for a democratic Libya will die (for now), and thousands of innocent bystanders — women and children among them — will perish as Qaddafi fights to his self-proclaimed “last drop of blood.”
Before Libya’s tyrant launches his final push, there’s news that the international community, including the United States, is preparing, albeit tardily, to act. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said today that “We are discussing very seriously and leading efforts in the Council around a range of actions that we believe could be effective in protecting civilians… The U.S. view is that we need to be prepared to contemplate steps that include, but perhaps go beyond, a no-fly zone.” [bolding mine]
In the most likely scenario, that would mean allied missile strikes at strategic military assets.
It’s clear that the West needs to change Qaddafi’s military calculation, in effect telling him, “advance on Benghazi and there will be consequences.” It appears to be more than just bluster designed to scare Qaddafi into a stalemate — Secretary Clinton has vowed a Security Council vote no later than today. Only a vote will separate those countries that stand with the oppressed from those who are content to tolerate military force used against those yearning for free expression.
This all begs the question: Progressives, are you comfortable with using military force — including airstrikes against strategic military targets — in Libya? Even when Qaddafi tries to pretend that he’s going to be a nice guy by giving the rebels a chance to surrender?
There are clear and compelling reasons to use force in this case, in concert with a progressive internationalist worldview, the belief that America can best defend itself by building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy. The progressive internationalist now has little choice but to act militarily to stop the mass, indiscriminate killing of Libyans who hold those values.
Here’s why:
1. There will be an international mandate. This operation is hardly one of George W. Bush’s hamfisted “coalitions of the willing”. The key is to ensure legitimacy that avoids putting and American face on intervention. The U.S. would be a participant, along with Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Conference, and the Gulf Cooperation Council who have all approved a no-fly zone at a minimum, and would very likely up the ante to endorsing a limited strike (which a NFZ implies anyway).
2. Major American allies like the U.K. and France have been stalwart supporters of action, and in concert with the U.S., likely bring along other major world powers. While China and Russia remain hard sells, they’re not exactly democrats interested in this stuff anyway.
3. Protecting democratic movements is a core American national interest. Gen. Wesley Clark staked a dangerous claim in an op-ed that oil was the only core worth protecting, and that while humanitarian disasters were terrible, they were hardly worth getting your hands dirty. Wrong. I’ll side with Anne Marie Slaughter, who tweeted, “Supporting accountable, open, rights-regarding governments in the Middle East = U.S. strategic interest. Will keep US safer than war in Afg.” And that, in addition to her piece in the NYT, clearly meant she would support military action.
4. The United Nation agreed that the international community has a “Responsibility to Protect” innocent civilians in times of “genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, as well as their incitement.” UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said it plainly: “We can save lives.”
5. The international community’s strategic goals are clear, if not bold. At this point, the consensus goal is to protect human life in the face of a humanitarian disaster. While members of the international community may have divergent goals — Secretary Clinton has said “he should go” — Qaddafi’s indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians who desire simple freedom of expression is enough to justify the use of at least minimum use of force to avert that outcome.
I am a conservative but I don’t feel any pressure to get involved in Libya. If the Arab League wants something done, let them do it.
The gut check will come when civilians start getting killed in airstrikes, which Gaddafi will claim whether it happens or not. Also, don’t put too much stock in the “support” of other Arab nations; the actual work, and fighting , will be done mostly by the U.S. and Europe. There’s at least a reasonable possibility that the NFZ won’t be enough to stop Gaddafi from winning, and that we’ll end up with boots on the ground. In that case, Arab support will evaporate and we’ll be left holding the bag (again). All of that said, removing Gaddafi is probably a good thing – it just won’t be as cheap or easy as some people think.
Then why not Iraq, in the first place, then? If “protecting democratic movements is a core American national interest,” and we have a “responsibility to protect innocent civilians,” why shouldn’t we have intervened against Saddam – who subjugated Kurds and Shi’ites, using mass torture, executions, and chemical weapons of mass destruction – long before we actually did, implement democracy, and save millions of lives? Or is that the smell of hypocrisy?
The NFZ was approved 10-0 by the UN Security Council tonight. Momar is supposed to be finishing his offensive against the last rebel stronghold tonight. Seems that the international bureaucracy is a day late and a dollar short. These progressives sound like Bush neo cons. Stay out of Libya and bring all of our troops home.
To answer INTJ above, as to why were we not similarly justified in Iraq: the answer is that our actions in Iraq were led by Bush, while the actions in Libya advocated by the columnist are led (though “led” might be too strong a word to describe anything related to this President) by Obama.
The columnist has it right, more or less. But I do thinkthat honesty requires him to acknolwedge that his analysis supports the Iraq invasion as well.
Charles Krauthammer said it best when he said that Leftists care FAR more about the process than they do the outcome. The Left wants multilateralism and lots of pompous resolutions. They want UN votes. They want the european nations to take the lead with the US quietly in the background. If all this leads to a good result, then fine. But if it leads to a bad result the Left is fine with that too….because they followed the process. And why is the process so critical to them? Because it makes them feel good about themselves; their sense of morality has been preserved. And the Libyan people? To the Left they’re just an abstraction.
In the face of the NFZ a Libyan cease fire, let the chess game begin. Who is the better chess player Momar or Obama? What will Obama do when european resolve weakens? Stay tuned.
How simple it is to make the struggles of folks under the boot of a military dictator into a “left” or “right” issue. America is in a precarious position. Neo-cons, military personnel and their families, most of centrist middle America, and all politicians when running for re-election or on camera, agree that 1) America is the apex of free democratic societies, and 2) America must maintain a strong global military force to protect the democratic way of life, and 3) America takes care of our international friends.
However, we immediately differ on how best to express these democratic ideals in the complex real world.
Example: Iraq, where our CIA supported a muderous thug who butchered tens of thousands until we decided to occupy the country and dismantle its military and police under the pretense of WMDs.
Example: Egypt, where US military aid bought us a “friend” for 3 decades while that government oppressed its own people.
Example: Saudia Arabia, where the US trades military hardware for oil while Saudi forces truck into Baharain to put down another uprising of oppressed folks who threaten the oil sheiks.
In this world, it is not black or white which nations/governments are our friends, or for how long they may be acceptable as such. This reality makes it critical for the US to formulate a forward-looking foreign policy strategy that can help guide our use of global diplomacy and foreign aid while taking time to recalculate the role played by our far-flung global military operations — hundreds of bases on foreign soil that we can’t afford.
Our country is in a fiscal debt that requires a shared belt-tightening. So how are we going to pay for the American bombs we drop, fuel for jet fighters, and military equipment maintenance. This is just one more step toward the Roman Empire decline of the US. It makes me sad.
[...] others, self-proclaimed progressive John Kerry, liberal Senator Carl Levin and the Progressive Policy Institute have called for military action against [...]
Jim,
Good article. You are right. I was suspect—but am convinced that sometimes you must do the right thing even it is messy and not really in your material interest. Thanks for being brave.